It appeared, for the briefest of moments, a concerted shock-and-awe campaign designed to dazzle and distract the media foot-soldiers.

After a week of effectively putting up its proverbial feet, the Weatherill Government rather clumsily lurched into action; the first text alert was for a 10am media call at the airport, Minister Susan Close joined by gourmand Maggie Beer to chat about “boosting food manufacturing”.

Then there was John Rau talking up his new gun control reforms, introducing mandatory jail terms for selling or supplying illegal firearms. Then came an intriguing alert for a midday briefing and media conference by the much-maligned Environment Protection Authority, which turned out to herald a broadening of the testing zone for potential trichloroethylene contamination at Clovelly Park and surrounds.

If we didn’t know better, a conspiracy theorist might suspect it was all designed to cunningly distract from the first day of Budget Estimates. If we didn’t know better.

But, since we do know better, we’ll concede that where Budget Estimates is concerned, we’ll take whatever distraction we can get.

The week-long circus of uninterested ministers being grilled by uninterested shadows is perhaps the most stultifying, stupefying spectacle in the parliamentary calendar, the political equivalent of watching two second-tier teams play out a dead-rubber soccer match for a nil-all draw.

Conceptually, it’s all wrong; by insisting on interrogating ministers, rather than functionaries, the entire affair becomes an exercise in either grandstanding or stonewalling (depending, of course, on how adept the given minister might be). And the word “interrogating” is generous, since the Opposition interlocutors are generally relaxed-verging-on-catatonic, and their inquisition is, to borrow former British MP Denis Healey’s famous put-down, “like being savaged by a dead sheep”.

The entire affair presents as a bizarre cross between a committee inquiry and Question Time, yet somehow manages to lose the former’s penchant for unexpected revelation and the latter’s gladiatorial theatre.

Tom Koutsantonis’s discourse with Steven Marshall (the actual Shadow Treasurer, Rob Lucas, of course, couldn’t join in the fun, since Estimates is only for Lower House types) essentially allowed each to unpack their usual grab-bag of grabs, the Treasurer lamenting Federal cuts and the Liberal leader tut-tutting about the jobless rate and the perpetual deficit.

They even continued their frequent Question Time stoush about whether the Government has ever been briefed about the prospect of privatising SA Water assets; Koutsantonis’s reticence and determination to answer a different, unasked question (“There’s been no decision taken to privatise any of those assets,” he insists, cryptically) suggests it has.

But his suggestion that only keeping the utility in Government hands guarantees against price hikes is a tad facile, given the Essential Services Commission report he rejected only a day earlier.

The draft report into water pricing determines the true cost of producing water in this state is in the vicinity of 62 cents per kilolitre. Consumers, though, are charged somewhat higher than that: at around $2.96 per kilolitre. The report recommended this anomaly be rectified; however, there was a catch. Within ESCOSA’s brief was the stipulation that any changes could not affect SA Water’s bottom line; so the revenue shortfall would have to be offset by massive hikes in the fixed supply charge. This would make the whole system far more efficient but, perversely, would mean the vast majority of South Australian homes and businesses would pay significantly more on their bills.

The review was first recommended by the Water For Good initiative, but I doubt that program would have endorsed anything that so blatantly discouraged water saving.

It was almost two years in the making, but had only been published for an hour when the Treasurer completely repudiated it.

What he didn’t do, though, was suggest something a bit more radical; that consumers should pay the true cost of their water, and SA Water NOT be compensated with arbitrary increases in supply charges. In other words, that SA Water’s healthy profits take the financial hit, rather than consumers’ hip pockets.

Of course he didn’t. With so few revenue streams holding up, the State Government is too heavily reliant on SA Water funds flowing into general revenue.

Our water bills are, in effect, a tax. We pay for what our water’s worth, and then we pay the same thing four times over to subsidise roads and schools and hospitals and extra ministerial offices.

Koutsantonis says he won’t be imposing a flat connection fee which would reward big water users who can afford to pay more because “we believe in progressive tax scales; we are the Labor Party”.

Something else the Labor Party believes in; tax and spend.

So the upshot of the whole folly is, don’t expect water prices to head south anytime soon, even though we now know we’re paying five times more than it’s worth.

Amazingly, no-one – neither Government nor Opposition – thought to countenance the notion of rewarding battlers and water-wise consumers while reducing SA Water’s revenue, but it certainly would have enlivened Budget Estimates if they had. That would have been true Shock-And-Awe. But no.

Jay Weatherill promised his fourth term Labor Government would be bold; but he never said it would be courageous.

Tom Richardson is InDaily’s political commentator and Channel Nine’s state political reporter.